Giving Credit is NOT Enough!

While it may be somewhat difficult to discern whether something that was published or posted recently falls under creative commons or public domain, most would consider it copyrighted until they see otherwise from the person or publisher. That's my mindset just to keep myself safe. Apparently, people think they are protected to repost someone's story or use someone's art if they just deny the credit saying, "This is not mine, credit goes to whoever made this," not saying who actually made it, or names the person, giving credit properly. You. Are. Not. Protected. By giving credit, you aren't a plagiarist, but you are infringing someone's copyrights if you don't obtain permission.

Note: embedding YouTube videos through the embedding icon is a whole other matter that I'm not going to cover here.

Apparently, some people don't know the difference between giving credit and obtaining permission. As with any time I write an article nowadays, it's usually because I saw something and joined the fiasco, but I learned from my past mistakes this time because I screenshot the conversation. So I can now give you the entire conversation word-for-word along with my inner thoughts at the time. This person did delete the book in question, so I won't be posting the screenshots, and I'm changing the username. Maybe they learned from this. Time will tell.

Hun: I've published this book, short horror; the stories aren't mine, I found them on the internet but I've mentioned the credit wherever possible. The thing is I found something cool: A WhatsApp conversation. As you read through this WhatsApp conversation you have to manually click enter to make each new message appear. It's as close to a text-based horror movie you'll find. Should I include it? Like one message contains a reference to something mature. Can somebody pls help me out here?

Wow. This is off to a great start, isn't it? The audacity of just reposting someone's short stories to their book, and now they're asking if they should do it again from another source. This person probably didn't know better, or perhaps there's a slim chance they obtained permission. I wish the snark mark was an acceptable symbol in writing.

HatedLove6: Do you have permission to repost these stories?

Hun: I think so if you're mentioning the credit

HatedLove6: Credit is not permission. Did you ask these people if you could repost their stories, and did they agree to it?

Hun: I honestly don't know, I found these stories on different sites.

How can you not know if you obtained permission? Either you asked them or you didn't. You either received permission or you didn't. It's a pretty clear-cut and dry process. Let's say you wanted to wear your mom's necklace to a party. What would be the ethical and right thing to do?

(A.) Ask your mom for permission, and respect her wishes even if she says no.

(B.) Ask your mom for permission, and take it anyway even if she says no.

(C.) Take the necklace without asking for permission, and tell anyone who compliments you about the necklace that it's your mom's.

If you chose (A.), good for you, but if you chose (B.) or (C.), you need to rethink some things.

HatedLove6: So you did not get permission to repost these stories. You may not be a plagiarist, but this is copyright infringement, and you've broken the site's Terms of Service.

Hun: Ooh I didn't know that... But they come under 'non-copyright' category.

Do they mean public domain? Do they think what they're doing is considered fair use? I'm confused.